The thing that many seem to forget about the origens of life on earth is that it happened without any competition. It's not like these molecular oddities had to get started on the current earth. They just had to be able to get the replication/variation/selection cycle started.DNA doesn't have to spontaneously generate. RNA seems to be able to start the process of evolution all by itself. Obviously not well by modern standards, but when there's no competition, no enzymes (RNAases) nothing to get in the way, it's not hard to imagine that those early RNAs mutated to assemble protiens to protect them, DNA to more stabily store RNA templates and cells to concentrate nutrients.If you break it down into baby steps it becomes almost inevitable that life happened.

I have a new theory for the Origin of Life on the earth. Life has originated from primordial membranes that have formed from hydrocarbon chains in the earth's crust about 3.7 billion years ago. These membranes developed electrical potentials resulting in the evolution of consciousness. The erosion of the hydrocarbons by the membrane potentials led to the development of various other organic molecules.

I have propounded a hypothesis with an adequte scientific ground. I have written a book titled "The Role of Cell Membrane in the Origin of Life and in Cell Biology". If you are interested you may discuss it in full detail with me.Dr Krishnagopal

The processes you describe sound like excellent candidates for recreation in the lab. Do you have any simulations in the works? Repeatable evidence is the difference between "science" and "making stuff up".

I thought When Earth was a molten surface. It was Bombarded with space objects that carried the first round of life-bearing substance and imbued the planet with its own sense of identity. Before the earth experiment began and the turning of the hardened planet surface into habitable by electrically shocking the core with a laser, and spray an oxygen shell around atmosphere with plasma ballon inflation. Then people arrived... How come there is no consensus??

Have any of you thought about the fact that the model of Evolution, is totally destroyed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

OK I'm going to try to explain the second law of thermodynamics without resorting to math.The basic idea is that things that are ordered will tend to become disordered. Think of a carefully stacked pyramid of cannon balls. Anything you do to the cannon balls will tend to result in thier no longer being piled up neatly in a pyramid. In fact no matter how much you randomly fiddle with them the chances of them ever being neatly piled in a pyramid again are infinitessimal.Notice I said randomly. If, however, you decide you want them to be in a neat pyramidal pile and start restacking them you do not violate the second law (obviously it's possible I've seen it done) when you succeed in stacking them. If you only fixate on the pile of cannon balls it appears that the order has increased. The universe, and the laws of thermodynamics,take a more wholistic view. Into the entropy equation go many other things besides the cannon balls small increase in order. There is the energy used by the person doing the stacking (Millions? of molecules of chemicals converted to more random forms, Lots of just plain heat given off by doing Work that cause the molecules in the area to move faster, get farther appart and be less ordered.) Things can become more ordered locally if the process also makes even more disorder happen elsewhere. Life and evolution are increadably good at this.

You said that it appears as if the pyramid, has become more complex, as in an optical illusion, because the really haven't become more complex, just reorganized, right?Does that mean that you are saying that evolution just reorganized the cells in animals, so they haven't evolved, they were just reorganized?

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

My explanation was about the 2nd law, not evolution. I said the stacked balls had more order, not complexity. They are not synonymous. You need to understand these concepts without the bias of trying to prove or disprove anything. If you feel you must disprove evolution all you have do do is come up with another theory that explains how life works and is consistent with all the evidence collected by humanity.

Many would argue that creationism isn't even a theory. I think this is wrong. Creationism is a theory and it's easily stated. God did it. Being scientists we like to check the details though. How, where, why and when did god do it? To be a good beleivable theory you must have good (prefferably logical and obvious) aswers to these questions . Let me also add that evidence can't be strictly heresay. Because Moses said so doesn't cut it.You must also explain my favorite problem with creationism. Why is your intelligent designer so bad at designing? A couple quick examples, The lower back (lumbar vertibrae) , Why do the paths of air being breathed and food being swallowed cross each other? (serious chocking hazard). Why give the gift of flight to birds and not us? Why give a much more efficient repiratory system to birds and not us? Maybe God likes birds better. Ask any doctor for further examples of poor design.Creationism is a theory, just a bad one that was abandonned in the 19th century for good reasons.Believe whatever you want but if you choose to believe something stupid I reserve the right to dispute you and laugh at you if it's really dumb.

Also although you may think that Creation has been abandoned, there are thousands of people, that would disgree with you there.I have said this many times, and I will say it again, if you go back to the very beginning of either viewpoint, you come up with an eternal Intelligent Creator (God) or eternal matter. Evolution takes more faith to beieve in, than Creation.http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/1117193Also why is it that most people on this website, answer my comments with insults. Sure, I can see that none of you like what I am saying, but throwing insults rather than providing evidence, makes you sound very unintelligent, and not professional at all.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould